Thread: Obama: approve or disapprove?

I know this is still early, but I am starting to lean toward "Obama is a socialist" rather than "Obama is a pramatist" in his ideals.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Jan. 22nd? I was talking about the 80+ rating he had just after his election victory in November.

Yes amazing how his numbers fluctuate so rapidly. Also depending upon who is conducting the poll the results are even more confusing.

Originally Posted by gunnut

I know this is still early, but I am starting to lean toward "Obama is a socialist" rather than "Obama is a pramatist" in his ideals.

How about a pragmatic socialist?

It's easy to imagine that a person who is now president and who was once dedicated to community work in an economically depressed area would be inclined to use his new found power to solve the problems he could not as a lowly footsoldier. Add to that being the son of a liberal mother who could not stand to harm an insect and you have someone with a socialistic bent. Still, he knows he cannot get anything done without a consensus, and without a consensus he will take the pragmatic course. Hence, a pragmatic socialist--pragmatic in that he will act within the bounds of what is politically feasible, and socialist in that he will opt for the liberal course rather than conservative when it's feasible.

JAD,

It's easy to imagine that a person who is now president and who was once dedicated to community work in an economically depressed area would be inclined to use his new found power to solve the problems he could not as a lowly footsoldier. Add to that being the son of a liberal mother who could not stand to harm an insect and you have someone with a socialistic bent.

that seems like the psychoanalysis stuff which conservatives used to mock liberals about, particularly liberal fixation with bush's supposed father complex.

, a pragmatic socialist--pragmatic in that he will act within the bounds of what is politically feasible, and socialist in that he will opt for the liberal course rather than conservative when it's feasible.

certainly not in all things. while i do also note his interest in community issues, i don't believe he automatically looks on government as the main engine for getting things done, which is the hallmark of the socialist.

Originally Posted by astralis

certainly not in all things. while i do also note his interest in community issues, i don't believe he automatically looks on government as the main engine for getting things done, which is the hallmark of the socialist.

I disagree. He loves the government. I think he truly believes the government can do things better than the private sector.

Just today he signed an XO to reform how contractors are used by the federal government. He says its to save money. But I think it will cost a lot more later on. Instead of hiring temp help, there will be some permanent bureaucrats doing things that was only temperarily needed. These people need salaries, pensions, health care, and god forbid, adding to the union ranks.

Originally Posted by astralis

JAD,that seems like the psychoanalysis stuff which conservatives used to mock liberals about, particularly liberal fixation with bush's supposed father complex.

I am shocked that you would think me so partisan. :P What I was saying is that the environment you move in is a factor in your aspriations. Haven't you ever heard someone say, "If I were president, I would..." Well, Mr. Obama trudged around a depressed Chicago ward trying to help poor folks achieve homeownership and, not getting far, said "screw it" and went instead to law school and then into politics with the goal in mind to get public office. If one way doesn't work, maybe another will. Good thinking.

Now consider what he thought needed to be done back then and what he thinks now that he has a modicum of power to get it done. Is he going to be true to himself or turn his back on what he once believed. I don't say it's a slam dunk that he will go whole hog and elevate the poverty stricken to middle class heaven with the stroke of a pen, but that given opportunities to move in that direction, he will. Psychoanalize that.

...certainly not in all things. while i do also note his interest in community issues, i don't believe he automatically looks on government as the main engine for getting things done, which is the hallmark of the socialist.

No; that would be pie in the sky. The point remains that given a clear choice of directions he will take the liberal course versus the conservative.

gunnut,

I disagree. He loves the government. I think he truly believes the government can do things better than the private sector.

if that's the case, then he wouldn't bother with the banking nor the auto bailouts- why revive the private sector when government is better? why vow to slash the deficit?

http://lostintransition.nationaljour...nomy-obama.php

Just today he signed an XO to reform how contractors are used by the federal government. He says its to save money. But I think it will cost a lot more later on. Instead of hiring temp help, there will be some permanent bureaucrats doing things that was only temperarily needed. These people need salaries, pensions, health care, and god forbid, adding to the union ranks.

wasn't an XO, it was a memo against noncompetitive (no-bid and cost plus) contracts, directing government agencies to source contracts out to more businesses. only the last part states that there will be a review of what should and should not be outsourced, which is particularly important in the world of defense contracting, a signifiicant portion of all federal contracting.

JAD,

No; that would be pie in the sky. The point remains that given a clear choice of directions he will take the liberal course versus the conservative.

well, sure, he is a Democrat, after all. but from the evidence we have so far, i do not believe it will be an automatic, instinctive tilt, which would highly concern me.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

if that's the case, then he wouldn't bother with the banking nor the auto bailouts- why revive the private sector when government is better? why vow to slash the deficit?

http://lostintransition.nationaljour...nomy-obama.php

Why bother reviving? Because it's an excuse to get government involved in the industry, for an eventual take-over.

Remember, democrats do things piecemeal. They don't come out and say or do the things they want. They get it little by little. They get the public used to the idea.

For example, SCHIP. It was originally for children in low income family. Slowly, the definition of "children" is anyone under the age of 28 and "low income" is now a family making $80k or less (exaggeration, but you get the point).

Banning guns, they don't come out and say it, but they do it little by little. First we'll ban the "assault weapons." Then we'll ban the magazines. Then we'll serialize the bullets so it becomes astronomically expensive for shooters. Then we'll have background checks, and make you pay a fee for this "service." Then we'll restrict guns to shooting areas. You get the picture.

Originally Posted by astralis

wasn't an XO, it was a memo against noncompetitive (no-bid and cost plus) contracts, directing government agencies to source contracts out to more businesses. only the last part states that there will be a review of what should and should not be outsourced, which is particularly important in the world of defense contracting, a signifiicant portion of all federal contracting.

It wasn't? Then I appologize. I heard it on the news and we all know the TV doesn't lie.

gunnut,

Why bother reviving? Because it's an excuse to get government involved in the industry, for an eventual take-over.

then the correct order would be to nationalize the industry and THEN "revive" it, as the europeans (particularly the french) have a tendency to do. or the slightly more moderate version, which involves the government buying a majority of the stocks (the idea that "hey, if we're already paying for the bailout, might as well get something out of it...").

looking at historical models, what obama is doing is not particularly socialist. hell, in respect to nationalization, even reagan went where obama dares not tread. why bother with "eventual" or "piecemeal" when past presidents have done it wholesale?

Originally Posted by astralis

JAD,well, sure, he is a Democrat, after all.

Oh, Lordy. Here we go with the circular reasoning. Yeah, he's a dem, but not all dems are liberals.

...but from the evidence we have so far, i do not believe it will be an automatic, instinctive tilt, which would highly concern me.

Automatic, no. Instinctive, yes. He's painting himself as a moderate, or something other than a far out liberal. Maybe it's real. Maybe not. No question he has been doing his best to ease the fears of moderates and conservatives who were scared to bejezzus at the prospect of community activist becoming president. Will the other foot fall? I'd say it has in the stimulus package, or rather in the form of an economy on the ropes in need of major repair. What better opportunity for him and the dem congress to slip some social programs thru the door?

JAD,

I'd say it has in the stimulus package, or rather in the form of an economy on the ropes in need of major repair. What better opportunity for him and the dem congress to slip some social programs thru the door?

i suspect this will end up much like bush and GWOT-- it'll be much easier to judge the extent of these liberal tendencies a few years down the line. we'll be able to judge first the efficacy and second the supposed temporary aspect of the stimulus programs...as well as obama's own moves towards reducing entitlements.